While gun owners are often referred to as a "vocal minority," the sign-up sheets for testimony show only 19 people in support of the bill, with 28 opposed.

First to testify was Trish Whitfield from the Oregon State Police ID unit.

While she did provide numbers for the total number of background checks done and the total number of denials, she did not provide any numbers for how many of those denials were for no cause.

She did not provide numbers for how many denials were actually felons, as opposed to people who were denied because they were not Oregon residents and simply misunderstood laws about non-resident purchases.

But far more interesting was that she could not provide any data at all about the number of "felons" who attempted a purchase and were denied and subsequently prosecuted.

The OSP has no info and can't share any info on this critical statistic.

But we know it is virtually never that a convicted felon attempts a transfer and is prosecuted for it. This, of course, demonstrates what a colossal farce SB 1551 is.

Celebrity victim Mark Kelly followed the OSP. Mark, as you know, is the former astronaut husband of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Giffords was shot along with others in Arizona by Jared Lee Loughner.

Kelly and Giffords are the spokesmodels for " Americans for Responsible Solutions" which has outraised all other "SuperPacs" with massive donations from millionaires, such as anti-gun zealot Mike Bloomberg of New York.

SB 1551 is a bill that will expand the failed background check system to virtually all gun transfers, even to a gun you give to your father-in-law or your best friend.

But while Mark Kelly was promoting this vast new invasion of your privacy, (and calling your rights "a loophole") he had some trouble responding to a question from Senator Betsy Close. She simply asked him if his wife's assailant had passed a background check. Which, of course, he had.

So Kelly attempted to divert the issue by discussing a whole host of other things that this bill does not address. But the damage was done. Clearly this bill would do nothing to stop the kinds of attacks that Kelly is exploiting.

Kelly's testimony was virtually an exact copy of the speech he recently gave in Washington state. Giffords and Kelly are on a national tour, largely funded by Bloomberg, promoting registration bills across the country.

Joining Kelly was Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, who stated both that the bill would not stop felons from getting guns and that we needed this bill to stop felons from getting guns!

The next panel was made up of a representative of the NRA (Dan Reid), Kevin Starrett of Oregon Firearms Federation and the irrepressible, and irreplaceable, Manny Martinez, a former Cuban citizen who escaped from Fidel Castro's utopian workers' paradise and came to America.

For sheer passion, few can compare with Mr. Martinez. You owe it to yourself to listen to his testimony.

Note, the hearing started with invited testimony. OFF was NOT invited. We testified as part of panel that was determined by NRA, which graciously extended an invitation to OFF and Mr. Martinez.

Dan Reid, the NRA rep, was chided by Floyd Prozanski for not being a resident of Oregon. (Mr. Reid covers several states and lives in California.) This was ironic of course, considering the star anti-gun celebrity witness (Mark Kelly) is from Arizona.

What followed was numerous panels of speakers from both sides of the issue. As you would expect, the anti-rights people recounted endless horror stories about victims of "gun violence." (They seem totally unconcerned with people who are victims of any other kind of violence.) One woman who supported gun registration discussed how important it was for people who were suicidal to give their guns to other people. No one pointed out that under this bill that would be illegal.

But there was one uniform reality.

Not a single story involved an incident that would have been prevented if this bill was enacted. Not one.

When one firearms instructor noted (correctly) that he might well have to run a background check on anyone who took his class and used one of his guns, Senator Prozanski responded with a complete misunderstanding of an opinion from the legislature's lawyers and said this was not true. As usual, Floyd was 100% wrong.

But for pure comic relief, nothing could top Prozanski's claim that he had nothing to do with informing the anti-gun side about the hearing well in advance of the public getting this information. Floyd's ability to tell this whopper with a straight face tells you all you need to know about the man.

Floyd set the date of the hearing. He decided the time and format of the hearing. Ceasefire Oregon had all this info almost a week before the public. There is simply no other place they could have gotten it from.

One thing was clear: this bill is not about reducing crime. It's not about stopping felons. According to Sen. Prozanski, the Oregon State Police performed 263,343 background checks for firearms transfers in 2013. He said that more than 99% were approved, and less than 1% were denied. That would be 261,128 unnecessary background checks on law-abiding Oregonians in order to prevent less than 1% of transfers by licensed dealers at the cost of millions to law-abiding Oregonians.

Whatever the number of actual felons attempting a purchase (something we cannot know), virtually none faced any prosecution.

So what exactly are we doing here? All the proponents agree this won't solve the problem. It's just a "step." So what's the next "step" and what's the goal?

There is no question they are tightening the noose. We have learned from other states that registration leads to confiscation. It's not open to debate; it's happening now.

Prozanski responded to this reality by suggesting it was a "conspiracy theory." But it's not a "theory;" it's a reality.

Many supporters of liberty showed up today and gave excellent testimony. We are grateful for each of you. This dangerous legislation is an attack on everyone who believes in individual rights. For everyone who showed up, whether you got a chance to testify or not, thank you.

Sent it out to my mail list also .
So this info is wide spread.
Keep pumping letters and pressure in earnest to every oregon legislator also.
The pressure CANNOT stop !!!!!
We have to dig a grave for this bill.

"One woman who supported gun registration discussed how important it was for people who were suicidal to give their guns to other people. No one pointed out that under this bill that would be illegal."

An excellent talking point I never thought of, these people are idiots.

My take on some additional points to press in your correspondence with your representatives:

First to testify was Trish Whitfield from the Oregon State Police ID unit.

While she did provide numbers for the total number of background checks done and the total number of denials, she did not provide any numbers for how many of those denials were for no cause.

She did not provide numbers for how many denials were actually felons, as opposed to people who were denied because they were not Oregon residents and simply misunderstood laws about non-resident purchases.

But far more interesting was that she could not provide any data at all about the number of &#8220;felons&#8221; who attempted a purchase and were denied and subsequently prosecuted.

The OSP has no info and can&#8217;t share any info on this critical statistic.

But we know it is virtually never that a convicted felon attempts a transfer and is prosecuted for it. This, of course, demonstrates what a colossal farce SB 1551 is.

Click to expand...

Is there anyone here who would have fought to stop fixing this problem? Aside from the information that is currently gathered and registered in the OSP database on lawful purchasers, would anyone fight to stop the OSP notifying the relevant agency or jurisdiction of a prohibited purchase attempt so that an investigation, arrest and prosecution could be made? How long have we been saying to enforce the current laws? This could have been addressed years ago with little to NO argument from gun Rights supporters. In this case it looks like it was missing some key pieces, but the foundation has been there all along and not utilized.

But while Mark Kelly was promoting this vast new invasion of your privacy, (and calling your rights &#8220;a loophole&#8221 he had some trouble responding to a question from Senator Betsy Close. She simply asked him if his wife&#8217;s assailant had passed a background check. Which, of course, he had.

So Kelly attempted to divert the issue...

Click to expand...

in part by saying that if Az had gun show background checks like Oregon and a law like this one proposes to make AND had his wife's assailant been reported as having mental issues he would have been unable to buy a firearm. I cannot have been the only one to hear the word he did not speak: legally. He would not have been able to buy one legally. He planned his attack and would have procured a firearm, legally or not.

Joining Kelly was Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, who stated both that the bill would not stop felons from getting guns and that we needed this bill to stop felons from getting guns!

Click to expand...

So what exactly are we doing here? All the proponents agree this won&#8217;t solve the problem. It&#8217;s just a &#8220;step.&#8221; So what&#8217;s the next &#8220;step&#8221; and what&#8217;s the goal?

Click to expand...

How many Bliss Ninnies have acknowledged that it won't stop the problem? Whatever cause célèbre it happens to be at the time, how many say that it is a 'step' in the right direction? Without saying so directly, the Governor and any others who agree that it won't stop violence are talking about incrementalism. Yet they say that isn't what they are doing. This is an area that needs to be shoved in their faces. Any time they bring up 'we know it won't stop all bad guys from getting guns...' it needs to be addressed as incrementalism, AGGRESSIVELY! What were the arguments and assurances used in the late 80's to implement Oregon's background check system? What were the arguments and assurances used for the gun show checks? I am sure they used the same type of language at some point. "It won't stop them all, but it is a step in the right direction" would probably sound familiar to anyone who has lived here over the lase 25 years.

I sent a very short email to and then called Sen Chris Edwards (since I have the wonderful privilege of living in his district) to voice my opposition to this stupid bill.

While I was at it I sent Merkley an email simply reminding him I still remember where he stood on Obamacare and more importantly the 2A, and that I was doing everything I could to see he gets the chance to spend more time with his family and pursue opportunities elsewhere.

I sent a very short email to and then called Sen Chris Edwards (since I have the wonderful privilege of living in his district) to voice my opposition to this stupid bill.

While I was at it I sent Merkley an email simply reminding him I still remember where he stood on Obamacare and more importantly the 2A, and that I was doing everything I could to see he gets the chance to spend more time with his family and pursue opportunities elsewhere.

Click to expand...

ROFLOL
I SEND him so much crap along those lines it is funny.
He is a waste. I keep telling him he is fired but he doesn't listen to that either.

Anyone have video of the whole thing? I'm practically on my death bed with a sickness from hell and was unable to attend.

Click to expand...

If it is that flu, it hits twice, first as a b...ch of a cold then about a week later, have a case of Imodium handy.
Just got over it a day ago........ lasts all total about 2 weeks. Just keep going, and it will not lay ya up too bad.

Thank you sir. I intend on putting in footnotes that sight my sources and amend the msg a little bit so it is more directed for the commity. I should have it done in 2 days, (nights rather, graveyard guy here) provided I don't die from this or that it incapacitates me further. I welcome any and all input you may have. Just send me a PM and we will establish a freer conversation on the subject without highjacking anymore of the OP's thread.

So, Sen. (Genius) Prozanski chided the NRA representative for not being an Oregonian, yet enabled (and cheered) the hypocrite spaceman from Arizona? Did he actually do that with a straight face? He's actually a state prosecutor?

I wonder what his conviction rate is..... Hmmmmm.

The barely intelligible comments in support of this F-ed up bill from the "peanut gallery" clearly shows the lack of intellectual depth of THAT constituency. Clearly, you "can't fix stupid".... It should be outlawed.

I sent a very short email to and then called Sen Chris Edwards (since I have the wonderful privilege of living in his district) to voice my opposition to this stupid bill.

While I was at it I sent Merkley an email simply reminding him I still remember where he stood on Obamacare and more importantly the 2A, and that I was doing everything I could to see he gets the chance to spend more time with his family and pursue opportunities elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Have you managed to get a reply from Edwards? I've sent several messages over the past year and have never received his reply. My feeling is that his lack of communication shows he is in favor of the gun control bills and refuses to acknowledge people in his district that oppose it.

Here's a letter in opposition to Measure 70 written by Prozanski back in the day (that I parsed out in quote-blocks). Bear with me and read it, there's valid points to be made...

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Twenty-six years ago, my sister was murdered by a drug dealer. It's one of the defining moments in my life that led me to become a prosecutor and a state representative.

As both a victim of crime and an officer of the court, I oppose Measures 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75.

As a prosecutor, my conviction rate is over 90 percent. most of the state's district attorneys have similar conviction rates. Prosecutors don't need more power than judges in our courtrooms, and that's exactly what some of these measures do.

In fact, some of these measures will give government prosecutors the same kind of power as Kenneth Starr. That's not the Oregon way.

Click to expand...

Nice buzz-word to use for those times.... Ahem, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski". -William Jeffeferson Clinto (the first REAL black U.S. President)

As a prosecutor, I am sworn to uphold Oregon's Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects Oregon citizens from overzealous government prosecutors, ensuring that our trials are fair and that both victims and defendants receive justice.

Gutting Oregon's Bill of Rights will not reduce crime.

Click to expand...

Clearly, even if he takes his shoes off, he can't count to Section-27 of the Oregon Constitution... You know, among the BILL OF RIGHTS where says:

Article-1

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Notice is says FOR THE DEFENSE OF THEMSELVES (primary purpose), and the State (secondary purpose)

Notice that it also says (in context of bearing arms) the MILITARY shall be kept strictly subordinate to civil power, NOT the people.

Sen. Prozanski IS correct about one thing for sure, "Gutting Oregon's Bill of Rights will not reduce crime." Just like as has been REPEADEDLY STATED by those that support SB1551 that it would not stop the very tragedies they supposedly seek to prevent!

While these measures are billed as helping victims of crime, voters must remember they take rights away from every Oregon citizen... rights granted to us under our Oregon Bill of Rights. These measures won't do anything to reduce crime, but they will place innocent Oregonians at greater risk.

Click to expand...

Obviously SB1551 is beng touted as "doing SOMETHING to help protect the public, but apparently it's ok with Prozanski to take rights away from, and place Oregonians at greater risk to harm when it suits his Statist agenda.

These Measures Could Cost Taxpayers Millions of Dollars.

Click to expand...

Out of their own pockets in fact, directly to pay for the OSP background check fee. But we don't care about gun owners' money, do we Sen. Prozanski?

The money we spend on these measures could be used to put more police on our streets or spend more money on educating our children. Education reduces crime and victimization. We should reduce crime, not eliminate protections guaranteed all citizens under the Oregon Bill of Rights.

As a crime victim and a prosecutor, I urge you to vote no on Measures 70-75.

Thank you.

Floyd Prozanski

Municipal Prosecutor and State Representative

(This information furnished by State Representative Floyd Prozanski.)

Click to expand...

Sen. Prozanski, stop using the public's time and money against it in order to proliferate your Statist agenda. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH tax revenue to get the damned roads and other infrastructure fixed, fund our emergency services personnel, if you'd stop pissing our tax dollars away on spotted owls, free needles/condoms, and "arts & croissants", and a multitude of other suckling piglets latched ont the public tit.

The curtain is up, and we SEE YOU! (Ps- shave that scraggly beard, it looks like you got crap all over your face)

We just went though the trained seal show here in Washington. It is hard to fight stupid since they are too stupid to realize they are stupid. Best Regards from us here in Washington who are fighting I-594. We have to stand together and fight as a united front wherever these dingbats show themselves.

Sent it out to my mail list also .
So this info is wide spread.
Keep pumping letters and pressure in earnest to every oregon legislator also.
The pressure CANNOT stop !!!!!
We have to dig a grave for this bill.

Welcome to our community

As the center of our organization, this website provides a place for Northwest gun owners to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Sign up now to participate, it's completely free and takes only a few moments.

About Us

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.